lobbyTO

Development application · Site Plan Approval (SA)

Development application 18 254620 STE 20 SA

210 Bloor St W

Status
Under Review
In progress
Submitted
9 November 2018
No appeal recorded
Linked lobbying registrations
1
Inferred links, published
Communications on linked registrations
14
6 meetings · 3 offices

Application record

Type
Site Plan Approval (SA)
Addresses
210 Bloor St W
Ward
Ward 11 · Dianne Saxe
Submitted
9 November 2018
Status
Under Review
Outcome recorded
In progress
Decision date
Not recorded in the open data
Appealed
No appeal recorded
Size stated in the description
42 units
Related file
18 254623 STE 20 OZ

Source: City of Toronto open data (Development Applications; Committee of Adjustment Applications). Dataset page · City application page

Description

INACTIVE Proposal for a 29-storey mixed-use building with 42 dwelling units and 100 square metres of ground floor retail space.

Linked lobbying registrations

These links are inferred by lobbyTO from file numbers and addresses named in the registration (task L2); the registry does not record which application a registration concerns.

Links between records are inferred by a model and are not reviewed by a person. Each link shows its score out of 1; moderate-confidence links (0.7 to 0.9) are wrong more often than high-confidence links. How links are scored

Lobbying on linked registrations

1 linked registration · 14 communications · 6 meetings · 3 offices contacted

Offices contacted

Linked registrations
  • Ward 11 University-Rosedale8
  • Dianne Saxe4
  • Ward 20 Trinity-Spadina2
Data table· 3 rows
OfficeOffice holder typeCommunicationsMeetingsLast contact
Ward 11 University-RosedaleMember of council836 June 2022
Dianne SaxeMember of council418 January 2025
Ward 20 Trinity-SpadinaMember of council2214 February 2018

Other registrations that mention this application's addresses

Text matches on the address only. They are not linked to this application unless listed above.

Comparison with similar applications

Lobbied applications are compared only with unlobbied applications of the same type, in the same ward, submitted in the same year and of the same size band (units or floor area from the description; sub-type for Committee of Adjustment files). Unlobbied applications are weighted to match the lobbied group. Raw lobbied versus unlobbied averages are not reported.

Site Plan Approval (SA), Ward 11

46 lobbied · 113 matched

Median days

  • Lobbied—
  • Matched, unlobbied1,629

Approval rate

  • Lobbied100% n=2
  • Matched, unlobbied100% n=12

Refusal rate

  • Lobbied0%
  • Matched, unlobbied0%

Appeal rate

  • Lobbied9%
  • Matched, unlobbied2%

Site Plan Approval (SA), City-wide

449 lobbied · 1,237 matched

Median days

  • Lobbied—
  • Matched, unlobbied727

Approval rate

  • Lobbied100% n=61
  • Matched, unlobbied97% n=96

Refusal rate

  • Lobbied0%
  • Matched, unlobbied3%

Appeal rate

  • Lobbied4%
  • Matched, unlobbied3%
Data table· 4 rows
Site Plan Approval (SA), Ward 11: 46 lobbied and 113 matched unlobbied applications in 26 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied46—100% (n=2)0%9%0.09
Matched, unlobbied1131,629100% (n=12)0%2%0.02
Site Plan Approval (SA), City-wide: 449 lobbied and 1,237 matched unlobbied applications in 307 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied449—100% (n=61)0%4%0.07
Matched, unlobbied1,23772797% (n=96)3%3%0.04

Submission to the first decision status seen in our daily loads (measured from launch). Approval and refusal rates are among applications with a recorded decision.

Large and complex applications attract both lobbying and longer reviews, and matching cannot remove every difference between applications, so a difference does not show that lobbying changed how an application was reviewed.

Lobbyists choose whom to contact, so a difference does not show a change of mind.